Adding Light is taking Thanksgiving week off of new posts, but as this week marks the end of the first six months of full-time blogging, I would like to share the top stories with you as thanks for your attention over these months. Please feel free to share with others, and I look forward to many more months of sharing stories and ideas with you.
Enjoy the journey,
Joseph F. Clair
Adding Light 1st most viewed story of June 1 - November 30, 2013:
The opportunity & the challenge from September of this year.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Friday Five: November 29, 2013
We call those who make great discoveries before finding proof geniuses, and those whose predictions of coming catastrophe come true, prophets. Until that time, however, we call them unstable, unbalanced, and either dangerous or irrelevant. This author points out the great psychological rift between what we have today, and what our actions of today will cause for tomorrow. Until we come to terms with that rift, and heal it, we offer ourselves little hope for survival.
Learning how to die in the Anthropocene
"This March, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, the commander of the United States Pacific Command, told security and foreign policy specialists in Cambridge, Mass., that global climate change was the greatest threat the United States faced — more dangerous than terrorism, Chinese hackers and North Korean nuclear missiles. Upheaval from increased temperatures, rising seas and radical destabilization 'is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen…' he said, 'that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’"
Small glimmers of light have emerged over the past couple of years. We finally see how coal-related energy devalues human life, and our economy reflects the falling priority we place on coal as a source of energy.
UK announces end of public financing for coal
"Finally, this reality is catching on. Governments and financial institutions are facing the reality that coal kills, and our future and our children’s future depend on transitioning away from the dirty and dangerous fuel.
The UK’s banking arm, the Export Finance department has approved over $100 million for coal projects since Oct. 2011, according to the department’s own annual reports. Those have all been in the form of coal mining projects in Russia. This new announcement would not only halt the funding for these projects, but it would also prevent any future investment in similar projects, aside from exceptional circumstances."
We now need a plan to transition those who still have years of value to give our society from their dirty jobs to ones that provide equal or better chance at high quality of life. Although this will take much effort, those skilled in operating equipment, managing people, and staffing logistics operations have many opportunities as long as our communities prioritize moving these fellow humans, fellow citizens into value-adding careers.
A part of Utah built on coal wonders what comes next
"As energy companies tack away from coal, toward cleaner, cheaper natural gas, people here have grown increasingly afraid that their community may soon slip away. Dozens of workers at the facility here, the Carbon Power Plant, have learned that they must retire early or seek other jobs. Local trucking and equipment outfits are preparing to take business elsewhere."
Despite the best propaganda from energy companies, more and more data shows that extractive energy industries do not provide employment boosts to the economy. Clean energy and energy efficiency provide much greater, and more stable, increases in employment, while adding value through improvement human and environmental health.
New report examines shale drilling impact
"Between 2005 and 2012, less than four new direct shale-related jobs have been created for each new well drilled, much less than estimates as high as 31 direct jobs per well in some industry-financed studies. Some counties with a long history of mineral extraction have experienced a shift in employment from coal to shale extraction. Recent trends are consistent with the boom and bust pattern that has characterized extractive industries for decades. It also points to the need for state and local policymakers to collaborate to enact policies that serve the public interest."
Solving the "wicked problems" posed by our relationship with energy, food and water will not take one large movement or solution, but rather the cumulative effort of thousands to millions small solutions. The time has come to keep moving forward.
Small planet, big appetites: How to feed a growing world
"If you see each tiny effort in isolation, then they each feel so small in the face of the behemoth of the industrial food system. However, if you take all these efforts together, then a global social movement takes shape. And global social movements have the power to make real change. This is how we can find hope that our kids and our grandkids will have a food system that works for them, for the earth, and for the future."
Happy Friday!
Learning how to die in the Anthropocene
"This March, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, the commander of the United States Pacific Command, told security and foreign policy specialists in Cambridge, Mass., that global climate change was the greatest threat the United States faced — more dangerous than terrorism, Chinese hackers and North Korean nuclear missiles. Upheaval from increased temperatures, rising seas and radical destabilization 'is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen…' he said, 'that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’"
Small glimmers of light have emerged over the past couple of years. We finally see how coal-related energy devalues human life, and our economy reflects the falling priority we place on coal as a source of energy.
UK announces end of public financing for coal
"Finally, this reality is catching on. Governments and financial institutions are facing the reality that coal kills, and our future and our children’s future depend on transitioning away from the dirty and dangerous fuel.
The UK’s banking arm, the Export Finance department has approved over $100 million for coal projects since Oct. 2011, according to the department’s own annual reports. Those have all been in the form of coal mining projects in Russia. This new announcement would not only halt the funding for these projects, but it would also prevent any future investment in similar projects, aside from exceptional circumstances."
We now need a plan to transition those who still have years of value to give our society from their dirty jobs to ones that provide equal or better chance at high quality of life. Although this will take much effort, those skilled in operating equipment, managing people, and staffing logistics operations have many opportunities as long as our communities prioritize moving these fellow humans, fellow citizens into value-adding careers.
A part of Utah built on coal wonders what comes next
"As energy companies tack away from coal, toward cleaner, cheaper natural gas, people here have grown increasingly afraid that their community may soon slip away. Dozens of workers at the facility here, the Carbon Power Plant, have learned that they must retire early or seek other jobs. Local trucking and equipment outfits are preparing to take business elsewhere."
Despite the best propaganda from energy companies, more and more data shows that extractive energy industries do not provide employment boosts to the economy. Clean energy and energy efficiency provide much greater, and more stable, increases in employment, while adding value through improvement human and environmental health.
New report examines shale drilling impact
"Between 2005 and 2012, less than four new direct shale-related jobs have been created for each new well drilled, much less than estimates as high as 31 direct jobs per well in some industry-financed studies. Some counties with a long history of mineral extraction have experienced a shift in employment from coal to shale extraction. Recent trends are consistent with the boom and bust pattern that has characterized extractive industries for decades. It also points to the need for state and local policymakers to collaborate to enact policies that serve the public interest."
Solving the "wicked problems" posed by our relationship with energy, food and water will not take one large movement or solution, but rather the cumulative effort of thousands to millions small solutions. The time has come to keep moving forward.
Small planet, big appetites: How to feed a growing world
"If you see each tiny effort in isolation, then they each feel so small in the face of the behemoth of the industrial food system. However, if you take all these efforts together, then a global social movement takes shape. And global social movements have the power to make real change. This is how we can find hope that our kids and our grandkids will have a food system that works for them, for the earth, and for the future."
Happy Friday!
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Flashes: November 27, 2013 Thankfulness
- I am thankful that I live in a developed economy where the labors of the many (in which I hope people would include me) allow me and my family to have ready access to food, water, and shelter.
- I am thankful that the Clean Air Act has led to improved air quality, reduced lead in the air, and a coincident drop in crime due to improvement in IQ among urban populations.
- I am thankful that my parents pushed the importance of education on me, and that through some crazy genetic mixup, I got an aptitude for science. It is a blessing and a curse, but on the whole, life is richer with an appreciation for the laws that underpin our existence.
- I am thankful that my children will grow up in an age of even greater communication and connectedness than I have. The conversations they can, and will, have with peers across the world will set us on a path toward even greater cooperation and harmony across the globe.
Enjoy the journey! and Happy Thanksgiving!
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Week of thankfulness: Want to make a difference? Don't work for non-profits
Adding Light is taking Thanksgiving week off of new posts, but as this week marks the end of the first six months of full-time blogging, I would like to share the top stories with you as thanks for your attention over these months. Please feel free to share with others, and I look forward to many more months of sharing stories and ideas with you.
Enjoy the journey,
Joseph F. Clair
Adding Light 2nd most viewed story of June 1 - November 30, 2013:
Want to make a difference? Don't work for non-profits from June of this year
Enjoy the journey,
Joseph F. Clair
Adding Light 2nd most viewed story of June 1 - November 30, 2013:
Want to make a difference? Don't work for non-profits from June of this year
Monday, November 25, 2013
Week of thankfulness: The high price of grocery shopping
Adding Light is taking Thanksgiving week off of new posts, but as this week marks the end of the first six months of full-time blogging, I would like to share the top stories with you as thanks for your attention over these months. Please feel free to share with others, and I look forward to many more months of sharing stories and ideas with you.
Enjoy the journey,
Joseph F. Clair
Adding Light 3rd most viewed story of June 1 - November 30, 2013:
The high price of grocery shopping from July of this year.
Enjoy the journey,
Joseph F. Clair
Adding Light 3rd most viewed story of June 1 - November 30, 2013:
The high price of grocery shopping from July of this year.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Friday Five: November 22, 2013
Someone celebrating a company getting a waiver to pollute the air for six years actually described the outcome as they could "breathe a sigh of relief". Alanis, that is the definition of ironic.
Dynegy gets waiver for Illinois coal plants
"The panel voted 3-1 to approve the order, and would not comment afterward. Board Chairwoman Deanna Glosser cast the only dissenting vote, saying she did not believe the company demonstrated an economic hardship. Her opinion would be posted on the board's website by Monday, an aide said.
Dynegy spokeswoman Katy Sullivan said the acquisition from St. Louis-based Ameren provided the best future for the plants, their employees and the communities in which they're located, and should be completed next month."
Let the finger-pointing begin. Now that we have identified the players that generate the most carbon pollution, it is only a matter of time before these companies point to others as the reason…the consumer who demands the product, or the government who allows it to happen (except of course, when the government is the owner).
Who is responsible for climate change?
"We’ve worked together to explore what lessons for climate accountability might be drawn from understanding how the science of health risks from smoking informed the history of tobacco control. UCS provided funding to ensure that his Climatic Change paper is open-access, available to all readers without charge. And we’re working together with a team of top-notch climate modelers to measure how much of the rise on global average temperature and specific climate change impacts can be attributed to the emissions traced to the major industrial carbon producers Heede identifies."
Once people do understand who causes most of the damage, when they decide to make their voice heard, they will now have to "pay to play". We talk all the time about "free speech", but our present dynamic no longer recognizes it. It appears that the literalist interpretation of the constitution notes that our Bill of Rights guarantees "freedom of speech", but that the speech need not be truly "free".
House to vote on bill that would impose $5,000 fee for protesting drilling projects
"The bill, introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), is broad legislation designed to make it much easier for oil and gas companies to obtain permission to drill on public lands. If signed into law, the legislation would automatically approve onshore drilling permits if the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) failed to act on them in 60 days.
If an individual does not like a proposed drilling project and wanted to oppose it, he or she would have to pay a $5,000 fee to file an official protest."
Only in baseball and energy use is a production rate of 30-40% considered a success.
Estimated energy use in 2012
"Rejected energy: 58.1 Quads out of 95.1 Quads total energy (61%)"
Overall, it comes down to humility. If we acknowledge that the current method has major flaws that we can address, then we open up to those who have solved some of the issues successfully, then we can create a society flush with quality-of-life-creating energy without causing harm to ourselves.
Lowering the Cost of Solar PV: Soft Costs with Hard Challenges (Part 1)
Lowering the Cost of Solar PV: Soft Costs with Hard Challenges (Part 2)
"The solar industry will remain a small story in America’s electrical system unless it can tame the soft cost beast. Progress to date has been uninspiring, due to limited focus and a dependency on government- and nonprofit-funded activities. Cross-competitor and cross-stakeholder (particularly utilities and solar developers) antagonistic dynamics have undoubtedly contributed to the lack of progress. The industry needs to grab the bull by the horns and take soft costs much more seriously. Stepping up soft cost engagement requires both increased pre-competitive actions supported by the industry, and additional cross-stakeholder solutions that provide value more broadly across the playing field."
Happy Friday!
Dynegy gets waiver for Illinois coal plants
"The panel voted 3-1 to approve the order, and would not comment afterward. Board Chairwoman Deanna Glosser cast the only dissenting vote, saying she did not believe the company demonstrated an economic hardship. Her opinion would be posted on the board's website by Monday, an aide said.
Dynegy spokeswoman Katy Sullivan said the acquisition from St. Louis-based Ameren provided the best future for the plants, their employees and the communities in which they're located, and should be completed next month."
Let the finger-pointing begin. Now that we have identified the players that generate the most carbon pollution, it is only a matter of time before these companies point to others as the reason…the consumer who demands the product, or the government who allows it to happen (except of course, when the government is the owner).
Who is responsible for climate change?
"We’ve worked together to explore what lessons for climate accountability might be drawn from understanding how the science of health risks from smoking informed the history of tobacco control. UCS provided funding to ensure that his Climatic Change paper is open-access, available to all readers without charge. And we’re working together with a team of top-notch climate modelers to measure how much of the rise on global average temperature and specific climate change impacts can be attributed to the emissions traced to the major industrial carbon producers Heede identifies."
Once people do understand who causes most of the damage, when they decide to make their voice heard, they will now have to "pay to play". We talk all the time about "free speech", but our present dynamic no longer recognizes it. It appears that the literalist interpretation of the constitution notes that our Bill of Rights guarantees "freedom of speech", but that the speech need not be truly "free".
House to vote on bill that would impose $5,000 fee for protesting drilling projects
"The bill, introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), is broad legislation designed to make it much easier for oil and gas companies to obtain permission to drill on public lands. If signed into law, the legislation would automatically approve onshore drilling permits if the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) failed to act on them in 60 days.
If an individual does not like a proposed drilling project and wanted to oppose it, he or she would have to pay a $5,000 fee to file an official protest."
Only in baseball and energy use is a production rate of 30-40% considered a success.
Estimated energy use in 2012
"Rejected energy: 58.1 Quads out of 95.1 Quads total energy (61%)"
Overall, it comes down to humility. If we acknowledge that the current method has major flaws that we can address, then we open up to those who have solved some of the issues successfully, then we can create a society flush with quality-of-life-creating energy without causing harm to ourselves.
Lowering the Cost of Solar PV: Soft Costs with Hard Challenges (Part 1)
Lowering the Cost of Solar PV: Soft Costs with Hard Challenges (Part 2)
"The solar industry will remain a small story in America’s electrical system unless it can tame the soft cost beast. Progress to date has been uninspiring, due to limited focus and a dependency on government- and nonprofit-funded activities. Cross-competitor and cross-stakeholder (particularly utilities and solar developers) antagonistic dynamics have undoubtedly contributed to the lack of progress. The industry needs to grab the bull by the horns and take soft costs much more seriously. Stepping up soft cost engagement requires both increased pre-competitive actions supported by the industry, and additional cross-stakeholder solutions that provide value more broadly across the playing field."
Happy Friday!
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Pick a card….like maybe a multi-modal transit card?
We live in a time where companies can track our entire online history and offer us up product suggestions with ease. When I shop for groceries, I receive a coupon with my receipt targeted toward my purchases. My credit card company knows more about my purchasing and travel habits than my wife. With the recent, albeit problematic, launch of Ventra card for CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) and PACE (suburban bus service), the time has finally come for a simple, easy to use, multi-modal transit payment system.
I am a multi-modal transit consumer. I use a variety of ways to get where I need to go, and will often plan around avoiding car transit unless the cost or schedule prohibits it. Right now, for a consumer like me, I have to obtain a separate pass or payment management system to access the different public transportation or vehicle share networks in the city and surrounding area. This complexity, combined with the cost, stands in the way of greater use of these systems, and a single system that provided a low-cost way to access these networks could increase ridership and revenue with little change in the infrastructure to deliver the service.
Right now, in Chicago, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) coordinates and appropriates to the three major public transportation agencies: CTA (trains and buses serving mostly City of Chicago locations), Metra (commuter rail serving some stops in the city, but mostly suburban locations), and PACE (serving mostly suburban areas). By state mandate, these three agencies must implement a single collection payment system, which CTA and PACE have done with the launch of Ventra. Metra, under the previous administration, slow-walked implementation, but with the changes in leadership could come an interest in developing a way to extend the single payment system throughout public transportation at least.
The other significant alternative transportation options come from bike and car share programs. Chicago has had two major car-share programs over the past decade: IGo and ZipCar. The Center for Neighborhood Technology launched IGo as a not-for-profit car-share organization specific to Chicago. (It was recently acquired by the for-profit Enterprise Car Share.) ZipCar operates as a for-profit corporation, and has a national footprint allowing members access to vehicles across the country. For bike share, Chicago tried to launch a program on its own in 2011, but that program fell apart, and with the help of some federal funding, a public-private partnership called Divvy Bikes launched in 2013. These options help to connect travelers between established train and bus stops and their final destinations. In addition, these options give travelers flexibility to use vehicles for trips that do not naturally lend themselves to public transportation modes of travel (grocery runs or trips to locations not on transit routes). In transit-dense areas of downtown and the north side, these options combined with traditional public transit mean a resident can live completely without a car. Although the density of service has not yet made its way to the west and south sides of the city, the potential is there to create equally transit-option-dense systems.
If we are to create a truly transit-friendly city that does not require its residents to own a car for their basic travel needs - a goal that would decrease road costs, decrease pollution, and increase happiness and quality of life - then we need to link all these systems together into the single-payment option. The precedent already exists with CTA and IGo having developed a version of the CTA Chicago Card Plus (predecessor to the current Ventra system) that would activate IGo cars and also grant access to CTA buses and trains. A system that provided unlimited access to Metra, CTA, PACE and Divvy, then granted a limited number of car-share rides could easily make money and provide transit flexibility.
Currently, the services individually offer volume discounts as follows:
Metra (for my zone C): $4.25 per ride, $121 for unlimited monthly (savings of $83)
CTA/PACE: $2.25 per ride, $100 for unlimited monthly (savings $8)
Divvy: $7.00 per day, $6.75 per month (paid yearly) unlimited 1/2 hour rides
(savings of $63.75)
Enterprise: $10.75 per ride (1 hour or less within 10 miles),
$6.25 per month for $7 per trip rides of unlimited distance
(savings of $12.50 per month)
These savings estimates come from estimates of commuter usage (44 rides a month on Metra and CTA, 20 Divvy rides and 5 car-share rides). If the agencies and providers are willing to give a nearly one-third discount to a regular user, then why can we not give someone who commits to using all of them instead of vehicle transportation another four or five percent. For $250 per month, an individual should have unlimited access to public transportation and bikeshare with an allowance of five rides on car share to get them through (additional or longer rides would come a la carte). If just 10,000 of the current automobile commuters switched to alternative means, it would inject $30 million into the local alternative transportation pool, and save drivers as much as $200 per month. The kind of win-win that can inject life into local economies.
The truth is, our cities are not able to handle everyone driving individual cars to work every day. We need robust and vibrant public transportation to keep our cities livable. If we move toward a system that rewards regular ridership with low costs, and promotes multi-modal transportation, we can both create a culture of ridership and provide needed revenue to make the system more sustainable.
I am a multi-modal transit consumer. I use a variety of ways to get where I need to go, and will often plan around avoiding car transit unless the cost or schedule prohibits it. Right now, for a consumer like me, I have to obtain a separate pass or payment management system to access the different public transportation or vehicle share networks in the city and surrounding area. This complexity, combined with the cost, stands in the way of greater use of these systems, and a single system that provided a low-cost way to access these networks could increase ridership and revenue with little change in the infrastructure to deliver the service.
Right now, in Chicago, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) coordinates and appropriates to the three major public transportation agencies: CTA (trains and buses serving mostly City of Chicago locations), Metra (commuter rail serving some stops in the city, but mostly suburban locations), and PACE (serving mostly suburban areas). By state mandate, these three agencies must implement a single collection payment system, which CTA and PACE have done with the launch of Ventra. Metra, under the previous administration, slow-walked implementation, but with the changes in leadership could come an interest in developing a way to extend the single payment system throughout public transportation at least.
The other significant alternative transportation options come from bike and car share programs. Chicago has had two major car-share programs over the past decade: IGo and ZipCar. The Center for Neighborhood Technology launched IGo as a not-for-profit car-share organization specific to Chicago. (It was recently acquired by the for-profit Enterprise Car Share.) ZipCar operates as a for-profit corporation, and has a national footprint allowing members access to vehicles across the country. For bike share, Chicago tried to launch a program on its own in 2011, but that program fell apart, and with the help of some federal funding, a public-private partnership called Divvy Bikes launched in 2013. These options help to connect travelers between established train and bus stops and their final destinations. In addition, these options give travelers flexibility to use vehicles for trips that do not naturally lend themselves to public transportation modes of travel (grocery runs or trips to locations not on transit routes). In transit-dense areas of downtown and the north side, these options combined with traditional public transit mean a resident can live completely without a car. Although the density of service has not yet made its way to the west and south sides of the city, the potential is there to create equally transit-option-dense systems.
If we are to create a truly transit-friendly city that does not require its residents to own a car for their basic travel needs - a goal that would decrease road costs, decrease pollution, and increase happiness and quality of life - then we need to link all these systems together into the single-payment option. The precedent already exists with CTA and IGo having developed a version of the CTA Chicago Card Plus (predecessor to the current Ventra system) that would activate IGo cars and also grant access to CTA buses and trains. A system that provided unlimited access to Metra, CTA, PACE and Divvy, then granted a limited number of car-share rides could easily make money and provide transit flexibility.
Currently, the services individually offer volume discounts as follows:
Metra (for my zone C): $4.25 per ride, $121 for unlimited monthly (savings of $83)
CTA/PACE: $2.25 per ride, $100 for unlimited monthly (savings $8)
Divvy: $7.00 per day, $6.75 per month (paid yearly) unlimited 1/2 hour rides
(savings of $63.75)
Enterprise: $10.75 per ride (1 hour or less within 10 miles),
$6.25 per month for $7 per trip rides of unlimited distance
(savings of $12.50 per month)
These savings estimates come from estimates of commuter usage (44 rides a month on Metra and CTA, 20 Divvy rides and 5 car-share rides). If the agencies and providers are willing to give a nearly one-third discount to a regular user, then why can we not give someone who commits to using all of them instead of vehicle transportation another four or five percent. For $250 per month, an individual should have unlimited access to public transportation and bikeshare with an allowance of five rides on car share to get them through (additional or longer rides would come a la carte). If just 10,000 of the current automobile commuters switched to alternative means, it would inject $30 million into the local alternative transportation pool, and save drivers as much as $200 per month. The kind of win-win that can inject life into local economies.
The truth is, our cities are not able to handle everyone driving individual cars to work every day. We need robust and vibrant public transportation to keep our cities livable. If we move toward a system that rewards regular ridership with low costs, and promotes multi-modal transportation, we can both create a culture of ridership and provide needed revenue to make the system more sustainable.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
We're on the right track, now we have to speed up the train without knocking it off the rails
Chicago houses several great environmental advocacy groups, most of which extend their reach - through partnerships and satellites - throughout the Great Lakes and Midwest. When I want some hope, I look to the successes that these organizations have had over the past decade. Recently, I received an update from the Environmental Law & Policy Center regarding their activities in advocating for improved electricity generation. Their data suggest we have found a good blueprint for success, but that we have a ways to go, especially if we do not want to trade one carbon-based future for another.
The ELPC report shows electricity usage dropping by a little over 10% from 2010 to 2020, based on progress in energy efficiency over the past couple of years. The Center rightly looks at the period after 2010 because we can attribute a dip in usage from 2007-2009 to the worldwide recession. Using data from the Energy Information Administration, we can verify that from a peak of almost 705 million megawatt-hours in 2010, the Midwest has dropped by almost 4% in just the past two years. Other than the recession, we have seen no such consecutive drop in electricity use across the region since 1990 (the earliest record I pulled for verification). If 2013 shows even a small drop, it will verify a trend that we can only hope continues throughout the coming decade. If we continue with this trend, we can cut our electricity use in half by 2050.
In other good news, since peaking at about 500 million megawatt-hours in annual production in 2008, the amount of electricity generated from coal has declined significantly. In 2012, we saw production at 380 million megawatt-hours, a nearly 25% reduction. The efforts of ELPC, Sierra Club, and many regional advocates have combined with market pressures and federal regulation to cause the retirement of several of the oldest and worst polluting coal-fired generation plants in the Midwest. This has significant local impact, especially in the communities that housed these plants. In Chicago, the Little Village and Pilsen neighborhoods nearest the Crawford and Fisk plants, respectively, hope so see major reductions in pollution-related illness over the coming years with the closing of those plants.
Major challenges remain for us as a region, however. The same data source that shows a potential trend toward reduced consumption of electricity shows a much slower drop for the use of natural gas in our residential, commercial, and industrial use. At the same time, as coal and nuclear plants close due to market forces, most predictions - including that of the ELPC - show natural gas taking up picking up most of the slack. This increase of usage, coupled with a slow decline in other uses for natural gas, mean that we will see flat usage over the next forty years in the region.
The continued reliance on natural gas over the next forty years should give us pause. For our region to find a truly sustainable future, we need to quickly and thoroughly integrate renewable energy systems into our lives as quickly as possible. Even with recent gains, ELPC only sees renewable energy reaching 20% of our electricity generation in 10 years, and at best, we can hope that they gain another 20% by 2050. The longer we remain dependent on finite and polluting sources of energy, the more likely we are to take a major economic hit when those resources are depleted. Recent increases in access to natural gas through hydraulic fracturing have given us the notion that we have found unlimited natural gas reserves to power us through the next century. We have yet to see that these reserves will keep up with the global population and development pressures that have caused a significant drop in per-capita fossil fuel reserves over the past 20 years. It will take major investment and recovery in order to even keep up with national demand, much less worldwide desires.
Lastly, it bears stating that we do not have enough evidence yet that hydraulic fracturing, the source of the latest boon in natural gas and oil, has a smaller environmental footprint than coal production. We have no doubt over the value of decreased sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides and soots that come from swapping natural gas for coal, but in terms of carbon production, the evidence currently leaves room for doubt. The volume and size of mining operations has left little ability to regulate the business effectively. The high-pressure, high-water-content operations have only been around for 15 years, so our understanding of the technology still need development. (As Dave Mathos of SkyTruth points out in a recent article, industry asks us to accept the modern version of fracking because it supposedly comes from a well-tested "60-year-old technology". In truth, the modern from of fracking bears only a faint resemblance too its 60-year-old ancestor.) Anecdotal evidence varies widely, and the environmental community has yet to coalesce behind testing or regulation to sort out the issues. Some have suggested that methane losses from modern fracking rise high enough to offset carbon reductions compared with coal. Data on seismic activity suggests that fracking operations create more earthquakes. Water sampling in areas that have a high number of wells points towards increases in benzene and other carcinogenic substances in the water (see the movie Gasland for more conjecture on the matter). Recent flooding in Colorado caused wastewater fields from fracking operations to get washed into the freshwater supply stream. Any one of these individually should cause us concern, but on the chance that all of them are coincidently true, we have simply traded one damaging future for another.
We have much work ahead of us. Energy efficiency needs to remain our primary goal, and we should accelerate our work to reach 50% of our current per-capita usage by 2030, not 2050. Also, we need to wrap all fuels into that goal, which includes natural gas for residential, commercial, and industrial operations. We already know that most of our peer countries in the OECD have high quality of life at this level of energy use per-capita, so we should easily attain it. We then need to focus immediately on policies that will favor the long-term stability of renewable energy over the long-term risks of natural gas. The cost of wind-generated and solar-generated electricity continues to drop, and if we remove the subsidies for oil and natural gas, while promoting financing mechanisms that look outward 20 to 30 years (like we already do for home purchases and municipal energy efficiency projects), we can limit the development of infrastructure around natural gas, thereby making it truly a bridge fuel to a renewable future, and not the next sandy foundation on which we base our quality of life.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Friday Five: November 15, 2013
In its purist, most utopian form, business is the social mechanism by which we find the most efficient, and hopefully effective, means by which to distribute scarce resources. However, business will not do anything that is not in its own best financial interest, nor will it decide on its own to make changes. In the real world, existing markets use incumbency to restrict the entry of new technologies, and use their accumulated profits to move markets in their favor. There are only two ways in which we can force business to do unprofitable but necessary things: regulation or mass social action (basically boycotts). Our republic, since the turn of the previous century, has used the will of the people expressed through our laws to accomplish this in the most effective way possible. Examples like this one show why consumer action and business platitudes do not do enough to solve our biggest problems.Walmart's carbon emissions soar despite all that green talk
"Today Walmart ranks as one of the biggest and fastest growing climate polluters in the country. If it were included in the Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index, a list that is limited to heavy industrial firms, such as oil companies and power plants, Walmart would take the 33rd spot, just a hair behind Chevron, America’s second largest oil company."
I have followed this work at the Center for Neighborhood Technology for many years now, and to me it stands as one of their most impressive achievements. When transportation energy costs bottomed out in the 1950s-60s, and then again in the 1990s, we expanded the infrastructure for transportation by vehicle and established a horrible precedent that living far from ones work was necessary and sometimes even desirable. Now, we are paying the price for those decisions. Hopefully, information like that in the transportation and affordability index will help the marketplace better shape our urban and suburban dynamics.
Why the government now cares what you spend on gas
"Donovan said 75 to 85 percent of a family's living costs can be explained by location. Behavior accounts for the rest. If that's true, it would be a powerful insight for federal policy to leverage in trying to expand access to affordable communities."
In every way, shape, and form renewable energy bests fossil fuel energy when we look at a horizon longer than 5-10 years. The fact that we still want to not only allow, but financially support the extraction of fossil fuels shows that our political and economic systems are no longer free markets, but manipulated markets meant to favor the past over the future. The role of renewable energy in the future of our society has grown every year for the last decade: originally we thought it would encompass only 5% of future energy use, now we think maybe 30%. There is no doubt that if we embarked on a "moonshot-like" program to bring our country to 95% renewable energy by 2030 we would not only get there, but would do so at a positive impact on our economy as well as our quality of life. When we get there, we will curse those who made us wait so long.
German expansion of renewables may cut energy costs by EUR 54bn by 2030 - study
"According to the study, renewable energy production costs EUR 0.031 less per 1 kWh than energy from fossil fuels. The generation of electricity from nuclear and fossil sources causes environmental damage which then needs high investments to be repaired. Green energy, on the other hand, saves on these additional expenses and keeps lowering its price due to technological innovation."
The benefits of a clean energy economy go beyond the macro economic and environmental issues to a greater appreciation for those who work on the systems and equipment that support our life as well as a different shaping of priorities relative to work. The productivity gains we have made over the past half century, coupled with the economic stability provided by a clean energy future should mean that a high quality, middle-class American lifestyle can be lived on the income of one - to maybe slightly over one - average American worker. This would free our neighborhoods to strengthen social ties again, create a level of income equality that formed the hallmark of our economic strength in the last half of last century, and incentivize entrepreneurship and creativity at a scale not seen since the end of the 19th century.
Building a clean energy economy that works
"The place to start is clean energy. Renewable energy and energy efficiency investments create far more jobs per dollar spent than fossil fuels, including natural gas. If done properly, the clean energy transition will lead to a massive expansion of good jobs, providing one of the biggest opportunities for growth of the labor movement over the next generation. But workers, communities of color, indigenous people, women, and people of emerging nations must both lead and be the primary beneficiaries of this change."
I eagerly await this encyclical. I have wondered when Pope Francis (or Cisco, as I like to call him) would speak out on environmental issues since they have an inextricable link to the poverty and social justice issues that he holds so dear to his heart. I look forward to working with him and the Catholic Church to accelerate action on environmental issues so that we can create a truly just world free from all forms of tyranny and oppression.
El Papa Francisco posa con una camiseta contra el fracking durante la visita de un senador argentino
"'Tuvimos un diálogo extenso y profundo sobre el daño ambiental que se está produciendo en nuestro paÃs y en el mundo. El Papa Francisco me reveló que está trabajando una gran EncÃclica sobre el Medio Ambiente', ha revelado el polÃtico. El emotivo gesto del Papa da la vuelta al mundo."
Happy Friday!
"Today Walmart ranks as one of the biggest and fastest growing climate polluters in the country. If it were included in the Greenhouse 100 Polluters Index, a list that is limited to heavy industrial firms, such as oil companies and power plants, Walmart would take the 33rd spot, just a hair behind Chevron, America’s second largest oil company."
I have followed this work at the Center for Neighborhood Technology for many years now, and to me it stands as one of their most impressive achievements. When transportation energy costs bottomed out in the 1950s-60s, and then again in the 1990s, we expanded the infrastructure for transportation by vehicle and established a horrible precedent that living far from ones work was necessary and sometimes even desirable. Now, we are paying the price for those decisions. Hopefully, information like that in the transportation and affordability index will help the marketplace better shape our urban and suburban dynamics.
Why the government now cares what you spend on gas
"Donovan said 75 to 85 percent of a family's living costs can be explained by location. Behavior accounts for the rest. If that's true, it would be a powerful insight for federal policy to leverage in trying to expand access to affordable communities."
In every way, shape, and form renewable energy bests fossil fuel energy when we look at a horizon longer than 5-10 years. The fact that we still want to not only allow, but financially support the extraction of fossil fuels shows that our political and economic systems are no longer free markets, but manipulated markets meant to favor the past over the future. The role of renewable energy in the future of our society has grown every year for the last decade: originally we thought it would encompass only 5% of future energy use, now we think maybe 30%. There is no doubt that if we embarked on a "moonshot-like" program to bring our country to 95% renewable energy by 2030 we would not only get there, but would do so at a positive impact on our economy as well as our quality of life. When we get there, we will curse those who made us wait so long.
German expansion of renewables may cut energy costs by EUR 54bn by 2030 - study
"According to the study, renewable energy production costs EUR 0.031 less per 1 kWh than energy from fossil fuels. The generation of electricity from nuclear and fossil sources causes environmental damage which then needs high investments to be repaired. Green energy, on the other hand, saves on these additional expenses and keeps lowering its price due to technological innovation."
The benefits of a clean energy economy go beyond the macro economic and environmental issues to a greater appreciation for those who work on the systems and equipment that support our life as well as a different shaping of priorities relative to work. The productivity gains we have made over the past half century, coupled with the economic stability provided by a clean energy future should mean that a high quality, middle-class American lifestyle can be lived on the income of one - to maybe slightly over one - average American worker. This would free our neighborhoods to strengthen social ties again, create a level of income equality that formed the hallmark of our economic strength in the last half of last century, and incentivize entrepreneurship and creativity at a scale not seen since the end of the 19th century.
Building a clean energy economy that works
"The place to start is clean energy. Renewable energy and energy efficiency investments create far more jobs per dollar spent than fossil fuels, including natural gas. If done properly, the clean energy transition will lead to a massive expansion of good jobs, providing one of the biggest opportunities for growth of the labor movement over the next generation. But workers, communities of color, indigenous people, women, and people of emerging nations must both lead and be the primary beneficiaries of this change."
I eagerly await this encyclical. I have wondered when Pope Francis (or Cisco, as I like to call him) would speak out on environmental issues since they have an inextricable link to the poverty and social justice issues that he holds so dear to his heart. I look forward to working with him and the Catholic Church to accelerate action on environmental issues so that we can create a truly just world free from all forms of tyranny and oppression.
El Papa Francisco posa con una camiseta contra el fracking durante la visita de un senador argentino
"'Tuvimos un diálogo extenso y profundo sobre el daño ambiental que se está produciendo en nuestro paÃs y en el mundo. El Papa Francisco me reveló que está trabajando una gran EncÃclica sobre el Medio Ambiente', ha revelado el polÃtico. El emotivo gesto del Papa da la vuelta al mundo."
Happy Friday!
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Competition is good, and time consuming
I was recently able to create an account and get quotes for health insurance for my family through the Illinois healthcare exchanges. I was pleasantly surprised by what is available. The table below summarizes my options (including what we paid this year). When we get our employer options for next year, this will give us a good template from which to work.
I created the range from the data provided on the website as follows:
1. The color of the bar represents the plan group: platinum, gold, silver and bronze. My current plan is in green.
2. The low end arrow starts at the total cost of 12 months worth of premiums plus the expected copays for my family of 6 for doctor's visits and prescriptions.
3. The high end arrow ends at the total cost of 12 months worth of premiums plus the expected copays plus the out-of-pocket maximum for the plan.
4. The dot sits at a point calculated from the low end cost plus 50% of the deductible. Low-deductible plans have their dot near the low end and high-deductible plans have their dot near the high end.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Give up the fight and make green easier
At a conference I recently attended, a group entered into a conversation about the obstacles to adopting more resilient practices in the building and maintaining homes. After sifting through issues ranging from costs to level of education, one of the participants raised an issue that has stuck in my craw ever since….
Those developing new technologies and strategies related to energy rarely shift through the familiar.
I wish I could remember the young man's name, because I would advocate that you follow him on Twitter or read his latest book (if he has one). I do not believe in single panaceas that solve all our problems, but as I look back at most of the resistance to the practices, behaviors, and technologies presented by those of us looking to make the world more livable for ours and future generations, I notice a prominence of asking people to break with the familiar and embrace change. If we look at the technological changes that have marked the past century, we can see the thread of this throughout.
Moving from the horse and buggy to the automobile included a car shaped similarly to a typical buggy and the use of the phrase "horse-less carriage". Yes, there's no horse, but it has "horsepower" and looks otherwise like you parents' carriage.
Motorola invented the cellular phone in the early 1970s, but it took the better part of 25 years to get the devices into widespread use in the US, notably, after home phones had switched from rotary dial to wireless hand-held.
Mention the concept of using radiation to cook food for human consumption to someone in the 1940s when the technology for microwave ovens was first developed, and no market would likely develop. Flash forward 30 years after nuclear energy becomes a household word, and an oven that cooks in a fraction of the time becomes not only accepted but desirable.
Again, this is not meant to oversimplify the issue. Each of the above examples carries other factors that needed to come into place before widespread acceptance could occur. That said, each of them shares the thought that we need the comfort of something familiar to carry us from the past to the future. As we begin to accept this as a community, we can use the concept to help shape how we move forward.
Those developing new technologies and strategies related to energy rarely shift through the familiar.
I wish I could remember the young man's name, because I would advocate that you follow him on Twitter or read his latest book (if he has one). I do not believe in single panaceas that solve all our problems, but as I look back at most of the resistance to the practices, behaviors, and technologies presented by those of us looking to make the world more livable for ours and future generations, I notice a prominence of asking people to break with the familiar and embrace change. If we look at the technological changes that have marked the past century, we can see the thread of this throughout.
Moving from the horse and buggy to the automobile included a car shaped similarly to a typical buggy and the use of the phrase "horse-less carriage". Yes, there's no horse, but it has "horsepower" and looks otherwise like you parents' carriage.
Motorola invented the cellular phone in the early 1970s, but it took the better part of 25 years to get the devices into widespread use in the US, notably, after home phones had switched from rotary dial to wireless hand-held.
Mention the concept of using radiation to cook food for human consumption to someone in the 1940s when the technology for microwave ovens was first developed, and no market would likely develop. Flash forward 30 years after nuclear energy becomes a household word, and an oven that cooks in a fraction of the time becomes not only accepted but desirable.
Again, this is not meant to oversimplify the issue. Each of the above examples carries other factors that needed to come into place before widespread acceptance could occur. That said, each of them shares the thought that we need the comfort of something familiar to carry us from the past to the future. As we begin to accept this as a community, we can use the concept to help shape how we move forward.
- Instead of looking to take away the security of utility service from a customer, we should work with utilities to incorporate them into community energy solutions.
- Instead of pummeling consumers with the message that their actions are "horrible and detrimental", we should first focus on developing technology that minimizes waste within the habits of typical consumers. This plan worked wonders for refrigerators using EnergyStar as the tool to deliver change in the manufacturing industry without changing the end result to consumers.
- Instead of trying to find new and more creative ways to communicate recycling to consumers, we should focus on eliminating non-recyclable material from the waste stream at the manufacturing level.
People will change course when it benefits their life, but generally will need a catastrophe to shake them away from the familiar. If we seek change without such mind-changing catastrophes, then we need to pursue a course that relies less on changing the behavior of 300 million people, and instead marshall our resources toward overcoming the core issues that make the behaviors detrimental.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Don't buy into local food because of carbon footprint
When I was a kid, my parents lived a frugal life, so when we got a Betamax player, it caused a sensation. We could watch movies in our home, and all it took was a walk down the street to the neighborhood video store. It was more than I could have ever imagined...
Until the day when Betamax went out of business and video stores no longer carried movies in that format.
The history of innovation has several such stories of competing technologies that eventually produce a winner and a loser, with the loser disappearing into oblivion. Anyone own a steam automobile? A recording cylinder? A Walkman?
From this, we need to learn that we gamble when we get too specific in our goals for the future. As a case in point, we have seen over the last five years a great acceleration of research, advocacy, and innovation around the idea of environmental sustainability. This realm includes topics from energy efficiency to renewable energy to urban agriculture. Although the research and innovation areas require skills and knowledge from varied fields, many of them overlap with several other areas, increasing the impact if one technology or strategy "succeeds".
Right now, we have two converging topics primed to have a "winner" and a "loser": local food and transportation. We have seen the market transformation of hybrid vehicles, and sit on the precipice of a wave of electric vehicle development and implementation. Within 15 to 20 years, the American vehicle fleet could easily consist of over 75% electric vehicles. Combined with developments in renewable energy generation, especially at the community scale, would mean that we have a real chance to eliminate harmful emissions from transportation. At the same time, we have a push for reduced transportation energy in our food system promoting more locally available products. This push seeks in part to reduce the environmental impact of our food system while maintaining health. If vehicle technology improves as predicted, or perhaps undergoes an even greater revolution because of forces we have yet to discover, in twenty years it may not matter whether I eat bananas that come from South America instead of apples from Michigan. Neither will contribute to harming the planet.
Local food advocates have other reasons for their work, so I do not seek to diminish the cause as a whole. For those that use carbon footprint and emissions as THE reason to push for local food, I would re-examine the need to put energy into that position. Even without a major technological shift, an electrified, minimal-carbon vehicle fleet will happen in our lifetimes; with a major shift, we may see something that performs even better. With this as the case, the time has come to forget about local food as a carbon mitigation strategy, and marshal our resources around food waste, nutrient-richness, or another food health issue.
Unless, of course, you're interested in buying some of my old Betamax movies.
Until the day when Betamax went out of business and video stores no longer carried movies in that format.
The history of innovation has several such stories of competing technologies that eventually produce a winner and a loser, with the loser disappearing into oblivion. Anyone own a steam automobile? A recording cylinder? A Walkman?
From this, we need to learn that we gamble when we get too specific in our goals for the future. As a case in point, we have seen over the last five years a great acceleration of research, advocacy, and innovation around the idea of environmental sustainability. This realm includes topics from energy efficiency to renewable energy to urban agriculture. Although the research and innovation areas require skills and knowledge from varied fields, many of them overlap with several other areas, increasing the impact if one technology or strategy "succeeds".
Right now, we have two converging topics primed to have a "winner" and a "loser": local food and transportation. We have seen the market transformation of hybrid vehicles, and sit on the precipice of a wave of electric vehicle development and implementation. Within 15 to 20 years, the American vehicle fleet could easily consist of over 75% electric vehicles. Combined with developments in renewable energy generation, especially at the community scale, would mean that we have a real chance to eliminate harmful emissions from transportation. At the same time, we have a push for reduced transportation energy in our food system promoting more locally available products. This push seeks in part to reduce the environmental impact of our food system while maintaining health. If vehicle technology improves as predicted, or perhaps undergoes an even greater revolution because of forces we have yet to discover, in twenty years it may not matter whether I eat bananas that come from South America instead of apples from Michigan. Neither will contribute to harming the planet.
Local food advocates have other reasons for their work, so I do not seek to diminish the cause as a whole. For those that use carbon footprint and emissions as THE reason to push for local food, I would re-examine the need to put energy into that position. Even without a major technological shift, an electrified, minimal-carbon vehicle fleet will happen in our lifetimes; with a major shift, we may see something that performs even better. With this as the case, the time has come to forget about local food as a carbon mitigation strategy, and marshal our resources around food waste, nutrient-richness, or another food health issue.
Unless, of course, you're interested in buying some of my old Betamax movies.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Friday Five: November 8, 2013
Much has been, and will be, made about government's role in regulating industry. The largest crutch on which industry relies is people's aversion to regulation "stalling the economy", seconded by the impact that regulation has on jobs. When people sense something is taking away their opportunity, they rally to defend against it. Except, in the case of coal, regulation does not take away jobs, mechanization and depletion take them away.
Here's why Central Appalachia's coal industry is dying
"On top of everything else, Central Appalachia's coal now appears to be running out, as many of the thick, easy-to-mine seams have vanished. The Energy Information Administration estimates that coal production in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia will soon be just half of what it was in 2008, plunging from 234 million tons down to 112 million tons in 2015."
The size and scale of numbers never cease to amaze me, especially when they are part of a headline. If I receive a $100 parking ticket, that amounts to roughly 0.1% of my annual take-home salary. Exxon Mobil faces a fine of 0.02% of their annual profit for negligence associated with a pipeline leak in Arkansas. Funny enough, my parking ticket did not result in the relocation of people, nor the destruction of habitat.
Exxon Mobile faces $2.7 million fine for Arkansas pipeline spill
"Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co faces a fine of nearly $2.7 million for a pipeline spill of thousands of barrels of Canadian crude oil in an Arkansas suburb last spring, the U.S. pipeline safety office said on Wednesday.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) found nine probable violations of safety rules in the rupture of the nearly 70-year old Pegasus pipeline that forced residents to evacuate their homes.
The 95,000 barrel-per-day pipeline has been shut since March 29 after spilling about 5,000 barrels in Mayflower, Arkansas."
Although I recommend reading the entire article because of the sheer luck that sometimes accompanies innovation (also, read anything about the scientist Michael Faraday), I point out the end of the article. We live in a backwards society where those with the brainpower to innovate, and those skilled at making that innovation happen, often - if not always - do not get to participate in the financial profit from that innovation. We need to change that...immediately.
Breakthrough: The accidental discover that revolutionized American energy
"Those responsible for the most important energy breakthrough in nearly a century didn’t fare nearly as well, however. Steinsberger, who had discovered the perfect mix of liquids to extract gas from shale and later saw his methods aped around the country, received a salary of just over $100,000 the year Mitchell was sold. He never received any bonus for his work. Kent Bowker made about $120,000 the year Mitchell Energy was sold, his usual salary. A few months after the merger, Bowker was interviewed by a Devon executive charged with helping decide which Mitchell Energy employees would be retained. As they chatted, the Devon executive fell asleep. Bowker realized he wouldn’t be given a meaningful role in the new company, so he quit. 'It was time to go,' he says."
Along those lines, empowerment - not employment - leads to success. Lost in the argument of capitalism vs. communism when it comes to executive pay and investor profits, is that when people participate in their fruits of their own success, they do more.
Africa's first fair-trade clothing company is a huge deal
"And Liberty seems to be succeeding at his goal of empowering moms. While some 40 percent of kids in Liberia go to school, that number is up to an amazing 98 percent for kids whose moms work for Liberty and Justice. Not only that, but the women show up an hour early to work so they can pray and sing together. Liberty describes his more mature, committed workforce as 'a mistake that worked out pretty well.'"
Innovation comes sometimes when you take away a piece of the puzzle and see how the system works. In this case, what happens when you take the system away altogether?
Swedes develop invisible bike helmet
"Tired of strapping ugly, uncomfortable styrofoam-and-plastic turtle shells to their heads, the pair came up with a pretty revolutionary solution that does manage to give you full head protection without, remarkably, wearing anything on your head."
Happy Friday!
Here's why Central Appalachia's coal industry is dying
"On top of everything else, Central Appalachia's coal now appears to be running out, as many of the thick, easy-to-mine seams have vanished. The Energy Information Administration estimates that coal production in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia will soon be just half of what it was in 2008, plunging from 234 million tons down to 112 million tons in 2015."
The size and scale of numbers never cease to amaze me, especially when they are part of a headline. If I receive a $100 parking ticket, that amounts to roughly 0.1% of my annual take-home salary. Exxon Mobil faces a fine of 0.02% of their annual profit for negligence associated with a pipeline leak in Arkansas. Funny enough, my parking ticket did not result in the relocation of people, nor the destruction of habitat.
Exxon Mobile faces $2.7 million fine for Arkansas pipeline spill
"Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co faces a fine of nearly $2.7 million for a pipeline spill of thousands of barrels of Canadian crude oil in an Arkansas suburb last spring, the U.S. pipeline safety office said on Wednesday.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) found nine probable violations of safety rules in the rupture of the nearly 70-year old Pegasus pipeline that forced residents to evacuate their homes.
The 95,000 barrel-per-day pipeline has been shut since March 29 after spilling about 5,000 barrels in Mayflower, Arkansas."
Although I recommend reading the entire article because of the sheer luck that sometimes accompanies innovation (also, read anything about the scientist Michael Faraday), I point out the end of the article. We live in a backwards society where those with the brainpower to innovate, and those skilled at making that innovation happen, often - if not always - do not get to participate in the financial profit from that innovation. We need to change that...immediately.
Breakthrough: The accidental discover that revolutionized American energy
"Those responsible for the most important energy breakthrough in nearly a century didn’t fare nearly as well, however. Steinsberger, who had discovered the perfect mix of liquids to extract gas from shale and later saw his methods aped around the country, received a salary of just over $100,000 the year Mitchell was sold. He never received any bonus for his work. Kent Bowker made about $120,000 the year Mitchell Energy was sold, his usual salary. A few months after the merger, Bowker was interviewed by a Devon executive charged with helping decide which Mitchell Energy employees would be retained. As they chatted, the Devon executive fell asleep. Bowker realized he wouldn’t be given a meaningful role in the new company, so he quit. 'It was time to go,' he says."
Along those lines, empowerment - not employment - leads to success. Lost in the argument of capitalism vs. communism when it comes to executive pay and investor profits, is that when people participate in their fruits of their own success, they do more.
Africa's first fair-trade clothing company is a huge deal
"And Liberty seems to be succeeding at his goal of empowering moms. While some 40 percent of kids in Liberia go to school, that number is up to an amazing 98 percent for kids whose moms work for Liberty and Justice. Not only that, but the women show up an hour early to work so they can pray and sing together. Liberty describes his more mature, committed workforce as 'a mistake that worked out pretty well.'"
Innovation comes sometimes when you take away a piece of the puzzle and see how the system works. In this case, what happens when you take the system away altogether?
Swedes develop invisible bike helmet
"Tired of strapping ugly, uncomfortable styrofoam-and-plastic turtle shells to their heads, the pair came up with a pretty revolutionary solution that does manage to give you full head protection without, remarkably, wearing anything on your head."
Happy Friday!
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Penny wise, kilowatt foolish
Imagine you have been given a task. Over a five year period you are to bring in more clients to your company, and in the early years you will be given more resources to bring in each new client, but as the years go on, you will be expected to bring in more clients with fewer resources. You could look at the requirement of bringing in new customers and go try to get the easiest prospects first, hoping that the momentum from new business will create more new business. On the other hand, you could look at your mission and see that in the later years, you get fewer dollars to spend bringing in each new client, so maybe you should leave easier work for that time and focus first on using the greater per client resources on tougher prospects.
This describes what occurred when ComEd and Ameren, the electric utilities in Illinois, negotiated an agreement with the state's General Assembly in 2007. The state created an energy efficiency portfolio standard (EEPS) that the utilities had to meet, and in return, the state would allow the utilities to create a customer charge that would fund that work. In order to keep the utilities honest, the General Assembly capped the amount the utilities could collect from the customers, but continually ramped up the required energy efficiency. Although no one will admit they got all they wanted out of the deal, the parties agreed and the mandate became law.
Fast forward six years, and ComEd wants to change the rules. The investor-owned utility claims it cannot meet the desired efficiency mandate without more resources. It wants to increase the customer charge for energy efficiency, raising rates, without much of a performance record for delivering on the efficiency. The reason ComEd finds itself in this predicament is that it focused early efforts on large customers, a relatively small group of users that they can reach with little effort. Once they had tapped that pool, they started to focus on smaller (and more numerous) users. This proves difficult and resource intensive. It takes a network of advocates, working in communities across the state, delivering smaller and smaller bundles of efficiency but from a larger pool of users. It appears the utility assumed that mass-media campaigns would bring in the residential and small business customers, while they focused personal efforts on larger users.
It should have been reversed. If the utilities had used the early resources to build networks, incentivize the development of community organizations, and create the infrastructure for efficiency, then they would have been able to build on that in each subsequent year. By focusing their resources on matching incentives to customers that already had an incentive to save (because of their large expenses associated with energy), ComEd and Ameren delivered savings, but not the culture to deliver more savings in the future.
All of this is not, at its core, the fault of ComEd and Ameren, per se. The fault lies in the business model of the investor-owned utility. They make their money based upon high usage...more kilowatt-hours means more revenue. This runs contrary to the concept of energy efficiency, which is why only a state mandate was necessary. Utilities are horrible advocates for energy efficiency because it runs counter to their business model. If we really want efficiency, we need to change the model.
This describes what occurred when ComEd and Ameren, the electric utilities in Illinois, negotiated an agreement with the state's General Assembly in 2007. The state created an energy efficiency portfolio standard (EEPS) that the utilities had to meet, and in return, the state would allow the utilities to create a customer charge that would fund that work. In order to keep the utilities honest, the General Assembly capped the amount the utilities could collect from the customers, but continually ramped up the required energy efficiency. Although no one will admit they got all they wanted out of the deal, the parties agreed and the mandate became law.
Fast forward six years, and ComEd wants to change the rules. The investor-owned utility claims it cannot meet the desired efficiency mandate without more resources. It wants to increase the customer charge for energy efficiency, raising rates, without much of a performance record for delivering on the efficiency. The reason ComEd finds itself in this predicament is that it focused early efforts on large customers, a relatively small group of users that they can reach with little effort. Once they had tapped that pool, they started to focus on smaller (and more numerous) users. This proves difficult and resource intensive. It takes a network of advocates, working in communities across the state, delivering smaller and smaller bundles of efficiency but from a larger pool of users. It appears the utility assumed that mass-media campaigns would bring in the residential and small business customers, while they focused personal efforts on larger users.
It should have been reversed. If the utilities had used the early resources to build networks, incentivize the development of community organizations, and create the infrastructure for efficiency, then they would have been able to build on that in each subsequent year. By focusing their resources on matching incentives to customers that already had an incentive to save (because of their large expenses associated with energy), ComEd and Ameren delivered savings, but not the culture to deliver more savings in the future.
All of this is not, at its core, the fault of ComEd and Ameren, per se. The fault lies in the business model of the investor-owned utility. They make their money based upon high usage...more kilowatt-hours means more revenue. This runs contrary to the concept of energy efficiency, which is why only a state mandate was necessary. Utilities are horrible advocates for energy efficiency because it runs counter to their business model. If we really want efficiency, we need to change the model.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Flashes: November 6, 2013 Elections and choices
- Voters in Broomfield, CO narrowly rejected a moratorium on fracking in their town (by a margin of 50.51% to 49.49%, while Youngstown and Bowling Green, OH defeated bans against fracking.
- Voters in Boulder, Lafayette, and Fort Collins, CO and Oberlin, OH passed moratorium or bans on fracking by significant margins.
- Voters in Washington state, similarly to those in California last year, turned down a ballot measure that would have required labeling of food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMO).
- Anyone wishing to buy products without GMO in them need only look for the USDA Organic label. The process for obtaining the label requires that the food product have no GMO in them.
Enjoy the journey!
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Power to the people, for the people, by the people?
A year ago, we went through the most expensive and one of the most contentious elections in recent history. Naturally, a year later, a general political malaise has washed over the land, like the hangover from binge drinking. Nonetheless, for some governors and state/local officials, today marks their election day. Also, since the progressive movement at the early part of last century, these elections have included a number of ballot measures covering issues from school district taxes to legalizing marijuana to allowing/restricting same-sex marriage. This year, the most interesting one for me comes from Colorado where several towns seek to ban fracking in their town.
Fracking, formally known as hydraulic fracturing, requires creating fissures in layers of soft rock, injecting chemicals into the cracks, then pulling out methane that has combined with the rocks. The process requires significant amounts of water, and results in the stranding of wastewater either at the surface or in the old wells. As a result, companies can extract vast amounts of previously non-recoverable natural gas, providing economic boon to a state, and keeping market prices low for energy. The ballot initiative process, where each registered voter can weigh in on the process and clearly define a community's desires, seems the perfect vehicle for a citizenry to weigh these potential outcomes and clearly tell the marketplace what they want.
Groups representing the oil and gas industry are devoting relatively large sums of money to combat these small county/township issues. There is no sense as to whether this nearly 40-to-1 ratio of spending on the issue will determine the outcome, and since it is a small item on the ballot, no polling numbers can give us early insight. At stake is the concept of whether the people living in a community have the right of self-determination over their quality of life. Critics of the measures counter that those who own the mineral rights to the natural gas have the right to extract it, but does that right mean the right to life of the citizens of a town is secondary to that? Colorado Springs has already banned fracking in the short-term, but these initiatives come directly from the citizens.
Industry officials contend that if the citizens of these towns vote down fracking, they will be turning down millions of dollars in revenue and basically saying they do not want the benefits that oil and gas exploration can bring a community. Maybe these officials should look a little more inward and take such a vote as a sign that the citizens of the community do not want the damage to their city that an industrial practice like fracking brings. Especially in a state where recent super-floods displaced mining wastewater across the state, perhaps industry could spend more time and money making their practices completely safe, and less time trying to tell the people what they want.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Who owns innovation?
As a kid, one of my favorite Schoolhouse Rock episodes was Mother Necessity. Through the typically catchy tunes of SR, we learned about Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Samuel Morse and the Wright brothers. Creative thinkers, hard workers, lucky opportunists, or some combination of all three. These stories have inspired young people across generations to tinker, invent, and innovate.
What makes these stories so interesting and inspiring is the "in their garage", "anyone with cleverness and a good work ethic can do it" feel to them. These people saw a need, pursued it, failed at it dozens if not hundreds of times, then finally succeeded and changed how we live our life. For those who want to change the world for the better, what better inspiration could there be.
The other interesting part about them, to me at least, is the captured history of what they did in the patents they obtained for their work. Among just the four I have listed they have 1,108 patents (although, to be honest, Edison has 1,093 of those...but the Wright's have what I think is one of the coolest). Their writings and sketches to prove the level of innovation persist in their original hand, providing both proof and record. The patents they obtained provided them temporary monopoly to develop their inventions into marketable products, giving them the opportunity to succeed or fail. They also forced competitors to find other ways to solve the same problems, or risk a lengthy legal challenge.
The way our modern patent system works does not promote this brand of innovation.
As Nathanael Johnson (@SavorTooth) notes in his recent article about agricultural innovation, quoting the ideas of Richard Jefferson an advocate for patent reform, our modern system does not focus on rewarding the individual,
Allow individuals to be the only patent holders.
By forbidding corporations from directly holding the patents, it would give the innovator more leverage. This would not forbid a corporation from gaining wealth from a patent. It would mean that they would have to enter into an agreement in which the innovator had strong leverage because the company could not sever ties without losing access to the patent. Also, it would shift the focus of corporations from accessing and holding patents to hiring talent and finding the most efficient means to deliver on the innovations those talented individuals create.
America showed the world how to give people the freedom to invent and succeed from that invention. We can return to a time when it was the individual with the incentive and the reward...if necessity truly is the mother of invention, then now is a time to invent a better way.
What makes these stories so interesting and inspiring is the "in their garage", "anyone with cleverness and a good work ethic can do it" feel to them. These people saw a need, pursued it, failed at it dozens if not hundreds of times, then finally succeeded and changed how we live our life. For those who want to change the world for the better, what better inspiration could there be.
The other interesting part about them, to me at least, is the captured history of what they did in the patents they obtained for their work. Among just the four I have listed they have 1,108 patents (although, to be honest, Edison has 1,093 of those...but the Wright's have what I think is one of the coolest). Their writings and sketches to prove the level of innovation persist in their original hand, providing both proof and record. The patents they obtained provided them temporary monopoly to develop their inventions into marketable products, giving them the opportunity to succeed or fail. They also forced competitors to find other ways to solve the same problems, or risk a lengthy legal challenge.
The way our modern patent system works does not promote this brand of innovation.
As Nathanael Johnson (@SavorTooth) notes in his recent article about agricultural innovation, quoting the ideas of Richard Jefferson an advocate for patent reform, our modern system does not focus on rewarding the individual,
"Instead, we have a small group of companies in rich countries, with a stranglehold on patents, designing all the solutions to fit their own business models. This system works primarily to bring in money for these companies, to maintain their privilege, and to exclude competition."I do not suggest that corporate interests in and of themselves are harmful, but the control and manipulation of patents by corporations goes against the intent of rewarding innovators with the chance to improve their invention. New innovation cannot find the air and fuel they need to take off when entities with large cash reserves have the access to legal means to quash any attempts. Also, by increasing the complexity of the patent process through amassing and holding multiple patents, corporations increase the cost of entry into the fray. The next Edison, Bell, or Wright has little alternative than to work for a large organization willing to bankroll them through the process. Many times, once these innovators have produced for the company, they are laid off and can no longer benefit from the innovation they created. We need a simple, and elegant change to the system to promote innovation and focus more of the rewards on the innovator...
Allow individuals to be the only patent holders.
By forbidding corporations from directly holding the patents, it would give the innovator more leverage. This would not forbid a corporation from gaining wealth from a patent. It would mean that they would have to enter into an agreement in which the innovator had strong leverage because the company could not sever ties without losing access to the patent. Also, it would shift the focus of corporations from accessing and holding patents to hiring talent and finding the most efficient means to deliver on the innovations those talented individuals create.
America showed the world how to give people the freedom to invent and succeed from that invention. We can return to a time when it was the individual with the incentive and the reward...if necessity truly is the mother of invention, then now is a time to invent a better way.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Friday Five: November 1, 2013
We have woven our systems and economies so much that we do not always see the potential for impact on our lives from issues in other parts of the country, much less the world. In all the squabbling over the Keystone XL pipeline, those of us in the Midwest, and specifically Chicago, saw the issue as important but having impacts elsewhere. Now, it has become obvious that people living not more than ten miles from my house will have their lives directly affected, and that it could move its way toward my home unless it is handled.The Kochs' dirty secret is out in Chicago
"There are many reasons that the Keystone XL pipeline will clearly exacerbate the problem of climate pollution…but one that is often overlooked (at our peril) is the problem of petroleum coke (aka “petcoke”). Petcoke is a refining byproduct of tar sands oil, and when burned is substantially dirtier than coal and contributes significantly to greenhouse gas pollution."
In an interesting take on the Keystone XL debate, there is some question as to where and when environmentalists should place their efforts to get policy intervention. If greenhouse gas emissions are ones primary consideration, then there is some evidence that Keystone should not be the issue, and maybe efforts in other areas will have more impact. It is also interesting to see the skepticism that we should levy against any advocacy organization when they speak about the immediacy and the seriousness of an issue.
The Keystone fight a huge environmentalist mistake
"That plan is far from certain. But Keystone won’t affect the outcome much one way or the other. If Obama pulls off the EPA plan, then the U.S. can hit its emissions target even if it builds the pipeline. If he doesn’t, it won’t hit the target, even if it kills the pipeline."
I has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps it would have been best to send Chinese planners a copy of newspaper reports from London in 1873 (or 1800, or 1880, or 1952...) before they decided to make their energy infrastructure so dependent on coal. If anyone thinks that coal is a solution for any energy issue going forward, one need only look at the images in the article.
Shanghai to forbid coal burning as China decides to monitor smog's effects
"The plan’s release comes on the heels of an especially crippling spell of smoggy days in northern China that caused schools, roads, and airports to close with visibility dropping to as little as 50 yards in some area. The PM2.5 index reached 1,000 in some parts of the northeastern capital city of Harbin, far above the 300 which is considered hazardous and the WHO-recommended daily level of no more than 20."
In the absence of national political movement to establish a truly free market in energy, one of the world's largest economies has teamed with other regional governments to take the lead. Just as we used to hear about "California emissions" when purchasing cars 30 years ago, hopefully this will catch on and work its way across the country so that we determine an accurate cost of emissions, and make sure that the cost is applied to the market so consumers have all the information they need when purchasing.
3 states, province sign West Coast climate pact
"The three states and one province won't necessarily use the same approach to putting a price on carbon. There are several options. California last year launched a cap-and-trade system, in which the state sets a declining annual limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Companies buy and sell permits to emit those gases, with the number of permits shrinking slowly over time. British Columbia, in contrast, uses a simple "carbon tax" of $30 Canadian ($28.73 U.S.) per ton of greenhouse gas emissions. The tax is included in fuel prices and is used to offset other provincial taxes. Washington and Oregon have yet to choose either system. The legislatures of both states considered cap-and-trade bills in 2009 but didn't adopt them because of concerns about the potential economic impact."
Because once a consumer sees the true cost of carbon-based fuels in combustion, they will quickly move to more cost effective solutions. Solar energy has now joined those ranks, and looks to only get more and more cost effective over the coming years.
Solar rebound beating dot-com recovery as demand surges
"Analysts have become more optimistic about solar shares in recent months. The average rating for SunPower, the biggest U.S. supplier of polysilicon-based solar panels, is 3.5, up from 2.4 in December and the highest in more than two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A 5 rating indicates investors should purchase the shares, and 1 means they should sell.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., the only Chinese solar manufacturer to report a profit in the second quarter, has an average rating of 3.7, up from 2.3 in May, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Its shares have more than tripled this year."
Happy Friday!
"There are many reasons that the Keystone XL pipeline will clearly exacerbate the problem of climate pollution…but one that is often overlooked (at our peril) is the problem of petroleum coke (aka “petcoke”). Petcoke is a refining byproduct of tar sands oil, and when burned is substantially dirtier than coal and contributes significantly to greenhouse gas pollution."
In an interesting take on the Keystone XL debate, there is some question as to where and when environmentalists should place their efforts to get policy intervention. If greenhouse gas emissions are ones primary consideration, then there is some evidence that Keystone should not be the issue, and maybe efforts in other areas will have more impact. It is also interesting to see the skepticism that we should levy against any advocacy organization when they speak about the immediacy and the seriousness of an issue.
The Keystone fight a huge environmentalist mistake
"That plan is far from certain. But Keystone won’t affect the outcome much one way or the other. If Obama pulls off the EPA plan, then the U.S. can hit its emissions target even if it builds the pipeline. If he doesn’t, it won’t hit the target, even if it kills the pipeline."
I has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps it would have been best to send Chinese planners a copy of newspaper reports from London in 1873 (or 1800, or 1880, or 1952...) before they decided to make their energy infrastructure so dependent on coal. If anyone thinks that coal is a solution for any energy issue going forward, one need only look at the images in the article.
Shanghai to forbid coal burning as China decides to monitor smog's effects
"The plan’s release comes on the heels of an especially crippling spell of smoggy days in northern China that caused schools, roads, and airports to close with visibility dropping to as little as 50 yards in some area. The PM2.5 index reached 1,000 in some parts of the northeastern capital city of Harbin, far above the 300 which is considered hazardous and the WHO-recommended daily level of no more than 20."
In the absence of national political movement to establish a truly free market in energy, one of the world's largest economies has teamed with other regional governments to take the lead. Just as we used to hear about "California emissions" when purchasing cars 30 years ago, hopefully this will catch on and work its way across the country so that we determine an accurate cost of emissions, and make sure that the cost is applied to the market so consumers have all the information they need when purchasing.
3 states, province sign West Coast climate pact
"The three states and one province won't necessarily use the same approach to putting a price on carbon. There are several options. California last year launched a cap-and-trade system, in which the state sets a declining annual limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Companies buy and sell permits to emit those gases, with the number of permits shrinking slowly over time. British Columbia, in contrast, uses a simple "carbon tax" of $30 Canadian ($28.73 U.S.) per ton of greenhouse gas emissions. The tax is included in fuel prices and is used to offset other provincial taxes. Washington and Oregon have yet to choose either system. The legislatures of both states considered cap-and-trade bills in 2009 but didn't adopt them because of concerns about the potential economic impact."
Because once a consumer sees the true cost of carbon-based fuels in combustion, they will quickly move to more cost effective solutions. Solar energy has now joined those ranks, and looks to only get more and more cost effective over the coming years.
Solar rebound beating dot-com recovery as demand surges
"Analysts have become more optimistic about solar shares in recent months. The average rating for SunPower, the biggest U.S. supplier of polysilicon-based solar panels, is 3.5, up from 2.4 in December and the highest in more than two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A 5 rating indicates investors should purchase the shares, and 1 means they should sell.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., the only Chinese solar manufacturer to report a profit in the second quarter, has an average rating of 3.7, up from 2.3 in May, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Its shares have more than tripled this year."
Happy Friday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)